His diocese has about 55,000 Catholics [gcatholic.org], making it about the same size as the diocese of Tyler, Texas or Gallup, New Mexico. And Bishop Schneider is an auxiliary Bishop, not the local ordinary. He assists the Bishop who leads his diocese.

Thus, Bishop Schneider does not have a prominent position in the Church. He is not the Roman Pontiff, nor is he a Cardinal, nor is he a Bishop who works for the Holy See. He does not lead his own diocese, which is a small diocese in a remote location.

He is a validly-ordained Bishop in the Catholic Church, who serves the Church and the faithful. He is a successor to the Apostles by episcopal ordination. He does have a right and duty to teach the faith. But he has no role to teach or correct the Pope, nor does he have the authority to stand in judgment over the Magisterium itself.

The problem here is that this bishop speaks as if he were judge over each Roman Pontiff and over the Magisterium and the Church Herself. He is usurping the role of the Pope, and taking for himself a role of judgment over every decision of doctrine and discipline by the Pope. And the only reason that we hear so much about him, and he seems to have so much influence, is that he encourages the papal critics and supports their rebellion against the Vicar of Christ.

Ordination of Women

In the interview, Bishop Schneider claims that the Church has infallibly taught that women cannot be ordained as deacons, priests, or bishops.

He claims: “By Divine institution, the sacrament of Holy Orders (sacramentum ordinis) can be administered only to a male person.”

To the contrary, the Magisterium has never taught that holy orders can be administered only to a male person. The teaching of Pope Saint John Paul II is that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” [Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4]. Notice that this infallible teaching is limited to “priestly ordination”. Now a Bishop is a kind of priest, and a Pope is a kind of Bishop. Therefore, the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests or bishops, and a woman cannot be Pope. But the question of ordination to the diaconate is still open; the Magisterium has not decided the question.

But Bishop Schneider has decided the question, as if he were the Magisterium. Bishop Schneider falsely claims that “The Church has no power to change this essential characteristic of this sacrament,” that only men can be ordained. And he goes so far as to limit the authority of Popes and Councils: “No Pope and no Ecumenical Council can ever permit a female sacramental ordination (whether deaconate, presbyterate or episcopate).” He has taken an infallible teaching of the Magisterium and distorted it substantially, so as to conform the teaching to his own mind. But as an auxiliary bishop, he has no role to issue a judgment that would bind the universal Church, and no role to bind the authority of Popes and Councils. This type of assertion by a Bishop is a grave error.

And what will happen if a Pope or Council does teach that women can be ordained deacons? Will Bishop Schneider assent to the teaching of the Magisterium, or will he adhere only to his own understanding, as so many papal critics already do? He has given every indication that he will oppose a teaching of the Magisterium on this subject, if it is contrary to his own mind. And that is not faith.

Reception of Holy Communion

Next, Bishop Schneider rejects the decision of discipline of John Paul II on reception of Communion by Orthodox Christians and, in some cases, Protestant Christians. He explicitly rejects this provision of Canon Law, instituted in 1983 by Pope Saint John Paul II, saying that this practice, “even in exceptional cases — by a Protestant or by an Orthodox Christian — constitutes, ultimately, a lie.” On what basis does an auxiliary Bishop reject a law of the Church instituted 35 years ago, which has been approved by the past three Popes? He merely asserts his own judgment and his own understanding of “Apostolic Tradition and the constant practice of the Catholic Church”.

And his objection is a good example of a common error by papal critics. They substitute their own understanding of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and past magisterial teachings for the authority of the current Pope, and past Popes — even Pope Saint John Paul II. They still complain about Vatican II, an Ecumenical Council. Their own judgment is exalted above Popes and Councils, as if they personally had the role to guard the Deposit of Faith and to stand in judgment over the Magisterium itself — all because they are conservative and they have a groups of conservative Catholics who support them.

What do you think Christ would say? He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8:1-11). He rebuked the disciples for trying to stop a man who was acting in the name of Jesus, doing good work, because “he does not follow us” (Mk 9:37). He spoke to the Samaritan woman, and accepted her invitation to preach in her town in Samaria (Jn 4:1-30). I can reach no other conclusion, based on the words and deeds of my Lord, other than that He would permit reception of Communion, in some cases, by Orthodox and Protestant Christians, despite their failure to believe all that the Church teaches.

But if this were not true, then most of the papal critics would also be unfit, by their own standard, to receive Communion, since they too refuse to believe all that the Church teaches, for example, Vatican II, or the more liberal teachings of Pope Saint John Paul II on salvation (e.g. RM 10), or the teachings of Pope Francis. There is no double standard. If you cannot receive Communion unless you believe all that the Church teaches, then any Catholics who refuse to believe must not receive.

And if you cannot receive Communion due to the objective mortal sin of divorce and remarriage (on the condition that it is not also an actual mortal sin), then how can so many Catholics receive who are unrepentant from the objective mortal sin of contraception and various sexual sins and various popular heresies? The standard for reception of Communion proposed by some papal critics is a double standard.

Idolatry

But Bishop Schneider is welcomed and praised by the papal critics because he is so much like them. He substitutes his own judgment and understanding for Church teaching. He accepts nothing of doctrine and discipline that is contrary to his own thinking. What kind of faith only trusts in one’s own understanding, and rejects openly any teaching or decision of the Church contrary to one’s own heart and mind? This is not faith in Christ, but only faith in one’s self.

Consider what the Blessed Virgin Mary said at La Salette: “Tremble, earth and you who make profession of serving Jesus Christ and who on the inside you adore yourselves, tremble”.

This type of rebellion against the authority of the Roman Pontiff over doctrine and discipline is not true worship and faith in God, but rather a worship of one’s own heart and mind, of one’s own understanding. So it is ironic that the same interview with Bishop Schneider should make mention of a vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich:

“Each member of the congregation drew an idol from his breast, set it up before him, and prayed to it. It was as if each man drew forth his secret thoughts or passions under the appearance of a dark cloud which, once outside, took some definite form.”

The papal critics are doing just that. They take from within themselves their own understanding, misunderstanding, and distortions of doctrine, and their own preferences for discipline, and they set it up as if it were an idol to be worshiped. For they do not give the submission of mind and will to the ordinary teachings of Popes and Councils, nor do they give the full assent of faith to infallible teachings (such as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4), and instead they adhere to whatever is within themselves. Faith in the teachings of the Church is a type of true worship of God, whereas belief only in one’s own understanding and judgment is a type of idolatry, of self-worship.

Other Criticisms

Many times the complaints of papal critics seem to be designed, not so much to correct a particular alleged error, but to combine to undermine the very authority of the Roman Pontiff over doctrine and discipline. They criticize everything they can possibly criticize. They continually seek every possible complaint, and every possible claimed error. The point is: “Listen to us, not to the Pope,” and, “Believe what we teach, not what he teaches”. Their goal seems to be to usurp the role given by God to the Roman Pontiff, so that the faithful worldwide would conform their beliefs and practices to the judgment of the conservative Catholic subculture. This attitude is schismatic. It is, at its core, a full rejection of both types of authority, over doctrine and discipline, by the Pope, by Councils, by the Church Herself. They are like Jezebel, who usurped the authority of the king.

I see no other possible end to this process than a conservative schism. Is the Roman Pontiff going to submit his authority to the conservative Catholic subculture? Will the Vicar of Christ treat an auxiliary bishop from a small diocese as if he were above the Pope and the Cardinals? Will some future Ecumenical Council nullify Vatican II and excommunicate Pope Francis? No, of course not. But will the conservative papal critics humble themselves to believe whatever the Roman Pontiff teaches? They should, but they are unwilling.

33 Responses to An Auxiliary Bishop exalts himself above the Roman Pontiff

He declared that the Church, Popes, and Councils can’t ordain women as deacons ever, despite the complete absence of any magisterial teaching on that point, based on his own understanding. He rejected a decision of JP2, continued by B16 and Francis, that Orthodox Christians and some Protestants in certain cases can receive Communion. His opinion is placed above three Popes and Canon Law. He doesn’t reference himself. Okay, but fundamentalist Protestants don’t reference themselves when they propose their understanding of Biblical teaching as if it could not err. It’s the same problem, not realizing that one’s own understanding of Tradition or magisterial teachings could err. His understanding is presented as dogmatic.

Sorry Ron, but why are you saying “despite the complete absence of any magisterial teaching on that point”? Is the constant and universal Tradition of the Church to be negletted at once?
Or, is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ofJPII not an act of Magisterium and a formal teaching of the Church? And, is an Apostolic Letter no longer a high ranking magisterial document?

Or, do we need a pontifical commission to better understand and interpret the profund sense and meaning of the folowing words?

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (OS 4.)

“priestly ordination” is the subject of that teaching. There is no similar assertion on the diaconate. Moreover, lay women are already permitted to baptize and officiate at weddings, in extraordinary cases, just as deacons do in their ordinary role. So the practice of the Church is not contrary to women in this role.

There are different levels of participation to the same priesthood of Christ, but there can’t be a qualitative difference amogst the ordination of Deacons, Priests or Bishops, as they all express of the same charisma. If it were possible to ordain women Deacons, there would be no reason not to ordain them also Priests and Bishops.
But if you are thinking of something different, there is no need to ordain women at all, or this would be a new kind of ordination, which however would bare no relation to the priesthood of Christ, besides having no precedent in the Tradition.

Which doctrine are you referring to? I’m unaware of any teaching saying women cannot be deacons. There is of course a discipline that prohibits them, currently. But no doctrine exists stating that women can be ordained. Instead, the doctrine is that Jesus did not give His Church the authority to ordain women to the priesthood.

But this is one of the problems in the conservative Catholic subculture: the culture decides questions of doctrine and presents their decision as if it were a dogma. Then, if the actual Magisterium decides differently, they think they can proclaim that the Magisterium has erred.

Come on, Ron, the question is not yet to be decided, it has been decided ever since.

If the diaconate were not a level of the priesthood, women would have been deacons since the very beginning; if the diaconate were not a level of the priesthood, there would be no need of ordination. What else do you need to make your mind? What else do you need to understand that it is not a matter of discipline, as JPII said?

If the issue has risen again now, it is only due to the internal thrusts of the Protestant currents inside the church. If the Magisterium wants to support these thrusts, it will be its own responsibility. We will follow faithfully, but it will be also the end of the catholic theological thought.

If a theology student, in an introductory class on the Sacraments, asserted that the diaconate was a level of the priesthood, he would be corrected; the answer would be marked as wrong. It is not a tenable theological position. A deacon is not a type of priest. Priests absolve sins and consecrate the Eucharist; deacons do neither. Deacons only minster Sacraments that are also ministered, in extraordinary cases, by lay persons.

Not sure what Daniel posted, and this is a tangent, but why do you, Ron, write as though Medjugorje and Garabandal are authentic apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, despite the lack of Church approval? The Medjugorje phenomenon has been condemned by at least two local bishops while Garabandal by four successive bishops, I believe. Historically, isn’t this enough to discredit them?

Although said bishops are not popes, is it not an act of obedience to defer to their judgement, as this has been common practice throughout time? While not on the level of contradicting a pope, is not your insistence to determine the truth for yourself an act of presumption of your part and scandal for some readers, particularly because you are a theologian and writer of books?

My support for Medjugorje and Garabandal is in the realm of personal opinion. It is not contrary to faith, since the Church permits pious opinions on matters of private revelation, and none of the messages or teachings of these apparitions are contrary to doctrine. We give the full assent of faith to infallible teachings, religious submission of mind and will to non-infallible teachings, and obedience to decisions of the Church on discipline. But there is no teaching or Church law requiring the faithful to turn aside from private revelations when the Church has not issued a definitive decision. You are speaking about the opinion of local Bishops, which is not even a non-infallible teaching or a Church discipline. So there is plenty of room for faithful disagreement.

To adhere to Medjugorje and Garabandal, contrary to decisions of local Bishops, is well within licit theological dissent. The dissent of papal critics is on the subject of decisions of greater weight: non-infallible teachings and Church law as well as Communion discipline. They could dissent faithfully, with a few changes to their position.

The faithful should have pious opinions and speculative theological ideas. You cannot live the faith solely by decisions made by the Magisterium. It is necessary and good to consider the faith, in many different aspects, and hold pious beliefs which are not in contradiction to any teaching of the Church.

“Next, Bishop Schneider rejects the decision of discipline of John Paul II on reception of Communion by Orthodox Christians and, in some cases, Protestant Christians. He explicitly rejects this provision of Canon Law, instituted in 1983 by Pope Saint John Paul II, saying that this practice, “even in exceptional cases — by a Protestant or by an Orthodox Christian — constitutes, ultimately, a lie.” On what basis does an auxiliary Bishop reject a law of the Church instituted 35 years ago, which has been approved by the past three Popes? He merely asserts his own judgment and his own understanding of “Apostolic Tradition and the constant practice of the Catholic Church. [……]What do you think Christ would say? He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8:1-11). He rebuked the disciples for trying to stop a man who was acting in the name of Jesus, doing good work, because “he does not follow us” (Mk 9:37). He spoke to the Samaritan woman, and accepted her invitation to preach in her town in Samaria (Jn 4:1-30). I can reach no other conclusion, based on the words and deeds of my Lord, other than that He would permit reception of Communion, in some cases, by Orthodox and Protestant Christians, despite their failure to believe all that the Church teaches”.

At least, Ron, this confirms what i have been saying for a long time: you cannot condemn Al without condemning the aforementioned discipline of John Paul II at the same time.

Many did not accept this, because they wanted to believe that what Saint John Paul II did was good and fine while Amoris Laetitia, according to them, goes against the Divine Law itself.

Of course i disagree with Bishop Athanasius Schneider but nonetheless his coherence his praiseworthy, while many, here in Italy and in the Usa, defend Saint John Paul II’s teaching and condemn Amoris Laetitia, thus applying a double standard which should have no place among Catholics (because refusing to convert to the Catholic Faith is an even graver sin than committing adultery, objectively).

Now i wonder what Sircigles and Stefano (they both said that Amoris Laetitia goes against the Divine Law while at the same time accepting Saint John Paul II’s discipline) will have to say in front of the coherence of Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Marco, I have never said that AL goes against the Divine Law; I have always referred to the interpretetions of AL, including the interpretation given by its author. This is criticizing opinions, not the Magisterium.

I have also criticized the way Francis chose to silence different opinions, imposing his own by force of a legal act (publishing in the AAS a private letter to the Bishops of Buenos Aires where he approved their remotedly piloted interpretation of Ch 8), rather than teaching authoritatively through a proper magisterial document (what he could do, but did not want to, since the Kasper resolution remained minority in the Synod).

In the light of what AL itself states regarding some questions which cannot always be defined by the Magisterium – which at least was an attempt to make Ch 8 somewhat more logically coherent – the above introduced then an element of even greater inconsistency and confusion.

This is my criticism with regard to AL and all I have to say concerning your question.

Whether it is truly a problem or not, if the decision is indeed made to ordain women to the diaconate, it will not seem to be a very “organic” decision, for lack of a better word. Now, if there were no pressure from women, feminists, and liberal clergy to ordain women, then the choice to permit female deacons would seem revelatory and the Church would truly seem prophetic in its wisdom. Or, perhaps if Pius X or Pius XII, for example, made the decision to ordain female deacons, the choice would have seemed unorthodox at first, but then in light of the liberalization of the West in the 60s and beyond would in hindsight (perhaps) have appeared to be a very wise and prophetic choice. But making that decision today just makes the Church look reactionary and privy to caving in to the demands of outside influence. Many will think that the choice will be made to merely “appease” women, so the cries to go even further and allow women priests will still persist, and even stronger. So, if the decision to ordain female deacons is made (I believe it will be coincident with the Synod on Youth in October), I think it will be prudent for the Holy Father to once again, and for all, definitively, teach infallibly that ordination to the priesthood is confined to men only. Because for some reason that teaching does not seem clear enough. I may be wrong here, but my sense is that the Holy Father and many of the Cardinals believe that the decision to ordain female deacons will be greeted with joy and celebration. But in actuality, I anticipate resentment from many that the decision didn’t go far enough (from liberals) and or was made erroneously (conservatives). Also, I am not sure – is there any theological reason that a nun could not perform the duties that a hypothetical female deacon will perform? If lay women in extraordinary circumstances can already perform baptisms and marriages, then why couldn’t a nun? Why not expand their role instead of creating a new category of women deacons?

Nuns can baptize and officiate at weddings, in extraordinary cases. But it is not the role of the religious life. Monks are not primarily assigned to baptisms and weddings. The religious life is usually prayer and service, rather than Sacraments.

There is a point of eschatology on this subject:
[Revelation]
{20:5} The rest of the dead did not live, until the thousand years are completed. This is the First Resurrection.
{20:6} Blessed and holy is he who takes part in the First Resurrection. Over these the second death has no power. But they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him for a thousand years.

This would seem to include women. The First Resurrection has various interpretations, but none of them exclude females. And the mere priesthood of all believers does not seem a sufficient explanation. So this passage predicts women priests in the future (in my view, after Christ returns).

Ron Conte, you are wrong, as a matter of fact, when you say that Schneider presents “his own understanding”. Schneider isn’t saying something that just popped out of his mind and anyone never said before. He is not like Luther or Calvin. The comparison with Protestants is untenable.

Are we joking or what? The impossibility to ordain women as deacon was the traditional thinking of all the Church for centuries. Deacony was only for male, like priesthood, it was so obvious that they didn’t need to remark it, like “sky is blue”. It’s debatable if the female deaconesses of the beginning of the Church were “deacon” in the meaning that now we give to the word. But even if were the case, that was the beginning. Church’s comprension of the sacred things evolved and there were no female deaconesses for what, 1500 year? That is a very long period, isn’t it? So how can you talk of a “complete absence of any magisterial teaching on that point”?
Let’s be clear, Ron. You can say that exclusion of the women from deacony is not mandatory, and it is not definitive magisterium, because JP2 talked explicitely about “priesthood”. That would be a legitimate opinion (I think it’s wrong, but I recognize the legitimacy).
But you cannot say that there is no magisterium on this point. There is a very long Tradition. There isn’t any “own understanding” on this point.

There was no Canon law for many centuries, no Bishops conferences, no election of the Pope by conclave, etc. Many things have changed over time. The absence of women deacons does not establish a teaching. If the Church lacks the authority to ordain women as deacons, why is there no magisterial statement on that point, not even a non-infallible one? Your opinion, likewise, is tenable, except for your claim that it is already decided. Maybe the Magisterium will decide that women cannot be deacons.

Obviously you know the difference between Tradition and Magisterium.
The absence of a formal magisterial statement is due exactly to this fact: there was no need to affirm a thing believed by everyone. Dogmas and statements are needed when a discussion arises. The mere fact of only male deacony for centuries is by itself more eloquent of any statement.

Tradition are changeable. Maybe this tradition will be changed. Let’s see. But don’ t say that who defends tradition defends his own thinking.

The Magisterium is the sole authoritative interpreter of Tradition and Scripture. If it is believed by everyone, then why has no one taught this alleged belief? And the fact that JP2 restricted his teaching to priestly ordination is sufficient to permit this opinion, that perhaps the Church does have authority to ordain women deacons.

Ron, there are hundreds of cases one can make with a lack specific formal pronouncement that, however, can be easily judged with a sound catholic sentiment. For example, marriage with a person that underwent an operation to change sex: what fallible or infallible teaching is there to prevent such an event? And yet, can anybody question the fact that such a marriage is against the catholic doctrine on marriage? So is for the women deacons issue, I believe.

If the Church teaches no deaconesses, then I’ll adhere to that teaching. What if the Church teaches women can be deacons? Will conservatives believe? There is a strong trend toward evaluating magisterial teaching, and deciding what to accept or reject. This is contrary to the very nature of the virtue of faith. I’m concerned many will reject the Pope, and accuse him of heresy.

That would not be my case, Ron. If the Church teaches women can be deacons, I will follow faithfully because there is no other place on earth where I can find salvation. But I would rather avoid these situations, if I can.

Of course, normally I would be sleeping peacefully because the new scribes would need a whole new set of theological arguments which they are not capable of, to speak frankly.

But, I am afraid, this time there will be no authoritative teaching at all since the key principle applies that doctrine is an impediment to change, along the same line of communion to the divorced and remarried (Orthodoxy kept separate from Orthopraxis).

Marco, Ron, as I said many times, you cannot put on the same degree Orthodoxes and Protestants. The first ones have an own clergy and their sacraments are valid (but illecit), they have confession and true Eucharist. Othodoxes can be absolved by their voluntary sins. The sin of schism is still pending but (normally) they are not aware of it.
Protestans have no clergy, almost no sacrament, no confession and no Eucharist. There is no valid sacramental absolution for them. Totally a horse of a different colour.

They are two very different types of problem. We have to debate separately about them. No potpourri, please. Confusion is a friend of the Enemy.

“The sin of schism is still pending but (normally) they are not aware of it“

Perfect, that’s what i wanted to hear. I’ve never said that ortodoxes and protestants are the same, i was criticizing those who refuse chapter VIII of Al and its authentic interpretation ratified in the AAS because the divorced and remarried are in an objective state of mortal sin while at the same time they accept the ortodoxes despite them being also in a state of objective mortal sin, because of their refusal to convert to the Catholic Faith.

If the objective state of the divorced and remarried is enough to absolutely exclude them from the Sacraments, even when they have mitigating factors -this is Athanasius Schneider’s position-, then the same applies to the ortodox.

There is no getting around it. And in fact Bishop Athanasius Schneider, coherently, says that both of them need to be excluded, and while i disagree i respect his opinion and his coherence.

I cannot respect those opinions whose aim is discrediting Pope Francis while at the same time defending everything that has been done by the two previous conservative Popes.

I have explained very amply on this site why there cannot be lack of awareness in divorced remarried. They surely know what Church says about divorce, and they disagree. It’s incoherent with their pretense to be Catholic.

The same thing can be said of those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff; those who use contraception; those who approve of various grave doctrinal errors. They should know better, but perhaps they do not. We cannot judge their consciences.

Dear children, you are moving towards a future of great division in the House of God. I suffer for what comes to you. Be courageous and bear witness to Jesus with your own life. Your cross will be heavy. You will be rejected for loving and defending the truth. Many fervent in faith will retreat out of fear and be contaminated by the mire of false ideologies that will enter the Church through false shepherds. Do not retreat. Give the best of yourselves and you will be rewarded by the Lord. When you feel weak, seek strength in the Words of My Jesus and in the Eucharist. The wicked men will try to erase the glow of the most precious treasure of the Church. Many will be confounded and Babel will be present everywhere. I ask you to keep the flame of your faith burning. Do not let your enemies win. Encourage and everywhere thirst like Jesus. The silence of the righteous strengthens the enemies of God. I am your Mother and I have come from Heaven to help you. Open your hearts and accept the Will of God for your lives. Be men and women of prayer. Only by the power of prayer can you achieve victory. Forward without fear. My Jesus is very close to you. This is the message I am sending you today in the name of the Most Holy Trinity. Thank You for allowing Me to meet you here one more time. I bless you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Be at peace.